Re: [I18ndir] Review volunteer needed (Fwd: [dispatch] WGLC of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07)

John C Klensin <> Wed, 29 April 2020 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF693A0A5E for <>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlWMbhxbW-o9 for <>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44FE3A0A58 for <>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 18:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1jTbj9-0007CT-Qt; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:41:31 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:41:25 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Pete Resnick <>, Internationalization Directorate <>
Message-ID: <31CF68D680D76D7F45FAB3E2@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [I18ndir] Review volunteer needed (Fwd: [dispatch] WGLC of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 01:41:42 -0000


Since some hours have gone by without a response to your message
and I was in need of an excuse to delay getting to an unpleasant

This note does not constitute either a review or an offer to do
one, but I just took a quick look at RFC 4329 and the diff and,
in a few seconds, found one statement/requirement in 4329 that
is unchanged (although circumstances have) that is an invitation
to a world of grief.  In addition, given Section 4.1, the
algorithm in 4.2 (both versions) is incomplete and can result in
a fairly serious error.

Moreover, if I correctly understand what seems like unnecessary
convoluted text (in both versions) a BOM is ignored in further
processing if the character encoding scheme is determined to be
UTF-8 in 4.2(2) or 4.2(3) but not ignored if charset="UTF-8" is
present and the BOM occurs anyway (something clearly allowed by
RFC 3629).  That doesn't appear to make sense.  If it was
intended, enough of an explanation would be in order that the
reader does not concluded it is just a mistake in the document
(I notice the I-D already corrected a mistake in 4329).  So,
having spent five minutes with 4329 and the diff and another
five writing this note, I can say with some confidence that the
I-D needs work and that someone is going to need to work with
the document authors to explain the issues, some of which are
substantive, not just text in need of tuning, and sort things
out.   You may be looking for a volunteer to do that job, not
just an early reviewer.

Back to lurking.


--On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 14:14 -0500 Pete Resnick
<> wrote:

> Folks,
> DISPATCH has made a working group last call on
> draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs. Given how much i18n
> content there is, the ADs and chairs agreed that an early
> review wouldn't hurt. There is a bunch of text about formal
> programming languages in this draft, so I didn't want to just
> stick somebody with it. Anyone feel comfortable enough to take
> on a review?
> Note that the review itself is much less horrible than it
> seems. This is really a -bis draft of RFC 4329, and most of
> the i18n language in here is unchanged from 4329. See:
> atch-javascript-mjs-07
> So it's really just reviewing any changes, and making sure
> that nothing absolutely egregious was in 4329 itself.
> Thanks,
> pr
> Forwarded message:
>> From: Ben Campbell <>
>> Cc: dispatch chairs <>rg>, ART ADs 
>> <>rg>,
>> Subject:
>> [dispatch] WGLC of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07
>> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 14:24:47 -0500
>> Hi,
>> This is a repeat working group last call of 
>> draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07.
>> pt-mjs/
>> The new version has changed quite a bit due to feedback from
>> the first  WGLC, shepherd feedback, and feedback from others.
>> In particular, this  version obsoletes RFC 4329, rather than
>> updating as did the version  from the first WGLC.
>> This WGLC will end on 8 May 20202. Please send feedback to
>> the  DISPATCH list and the authors. And if you review the
>> document and  think it's ready to go, please say so.
>> Thanks!
>> Ben